SUPPLY OF TIMBER

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 117, 12 February 1944, Page 5

SUPPLY OF TIMBER

Allegation Of False Pretence

CASE FOR MANAGER OF COMPANY (By Telegraph.—l’ress Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, February 11. A submission that, there was no case to go to the jury was made by Mr. H. 11. O'Leary, K.C.. counsel for accused in the trial of William Henry Banks, manager of the l’ap:inui Timber Company, on a charge •<>£ attempting to obtain £2BO/1/3 from the United States Joint I’urehasing Board for the'Papanui Timber Company by means of a false pretence, namely, by renresentipg that the quality of timber supplied to the board was higher than in fact it was, Mr. O’Leary submitted that there was no evidence of the personal knowledge ot accused of th? alleged false pretence, and he asked Mr. Justice Northcroft to direct the jury accordingly. His Honour said ue was not prepared at this stage to withdraw; the case from the jury or to give a direction for ac‘iuitt.il. , , „ , . , T Cross-examined, Janies I< redenek Lysaght. officer of the State Forest Service, who examined' the timber in dispute, said th e amended valuation brought tlic amount concerned to £286 9/L Detective-Sergeant James McClung said that with Lysaght he interviewed Banks on June 3. Asked if be (Banks) had supervised the getting out of the order, Banks declined to answer. He also declined to answer when asked if he had bought auy second-grade timber when an inspection was made of the timber, and he had nothing to say as to whether the condemnation by Lysaght was wropg or unfair. He said the timber with nail holes in it apparently got in by mistake. Caso for Defendant. Opening for the defence, Mr. O’Leary said he agreed; with the statement of the Crown Prosecutor that it was a case ot great importance not only to the Crown but to accused. He took exception, however, to Mr. Brown’s statement that “some person or persons had almost succeeded in a cruel, shameful and cowardly fraud on the allies who are fighting so magnificently on our side. Though he had protested against it at the time, said counsel, the Court had ruled that Mr. Brown was entitled to make it. Mr. O’Leary contended that the statement had been made to raise prejudice and animosity against accused. The case was not to be dealt with by the jury by prejudieg and indignation on one side or by sympathy or sentimentality ou the other. When the jury had heard the evidence of the defence it might well be that they would regard it as a cruel prosecution. Mr. O’Leary said it would be shown that there had been an unusual demand for timber during the last year, with the result that it had beeu delivered in Christchurch as quickly as possible. There had also been great difficulty in obtaining labour for the yards, consequently Banks had had to rely on inexperienced men for classifying timber. Doubtless, some of the timber got into wrong “pockets” in the yards. The order In question was a rush order. That fact had x not been disputed. On some nights the men were working'on it till 11 p.m. “The Crown’s case is based ou Lysaght’s grading, blit we do not accept that grading as acceptable to timber merchants, builders and other practical men,” said Mr. O’Leary, who also em£hasized that the regulations by which lysaght had graded had no legal force and in any case were not accepted by all in the trade and particularly in Christchurch. Lysaght had rejected far more of the timber than practical men iu the trade would have done. There was great divergence in the views as to the grading held by the trade and Lysaght. •The latter, it would be submitted, 1 had been “altogether too sweeping.” Evidence was given by Frederick John Andrews, yardman, employed' by the Papanui Timber Company, Gilbert Radford, head yardman at the company’s Papanui Rond yard, and by accused Banks. Accused said in evidence that he was in partnership with his father and brother in the Papanui Timber Company, and he also had a similar interest with his brother iu the North Canterbury Timber Company. He stated that the order for the Americans had been a rush one and he was not present when the loading took'place as he was then on holidays. . Being short-handed in his office, witness added, he had not been able' to supervise the dispatch of the .order* '

The Court adjourned at this stage to enable the jury to inspect the timber. “As this case may have excited some interest outside," said Mr. Justice Northcroft, “I want you to understand that you must not discuss it with anyone. No outsider is to discuss it with you, however harmlessly." Accused Cross-examined. Cross-examined when the Court resumed. Banks said the order concerned in the charge was the third from the U.S. Joint Purchasing Board, and (here had been no complaints regarding the two previous orders, which did not have to be furnished in. such a rush. He had no word that any of the timber going out was defective. Banks admitted he wrote' the invoices without taking steps to cheek x that what was invoiced as .heart was in fact heart. The firm seldoin had complaints, regarding the work of its yardmen, and. from past- experience he had no hesitation in accepting their grading. Accused said that he did not protest at a meeting of the North Canterbury Timber Merchants’ Association after Lysaght had made his report and rejected so much of the timber supplied by his company. “It came as a thunderbolt to me,” said Banks. “I could not offer an explanation because I knew nothing. I could not believe that such timber could have come from my yard.” He said later that he had not since inspected the timber.

His Honour: It certainly seems very extraordinary to me that you did not go near your timber. , You were the most interested person, with more than £2OO wor,th. Is it not possible that you might have disagreed with Mr. Lysaght’s grading? Might he not have been wrong in some respects?—We all agreed to accept Mr. Lysaght’s grading in order to settle the matter. “It is very difficult to understand your attitude,” his Honour commented. Robert James Appleton, manager of the Addington Timber Company and an officer in the North Canterbury Timber Merchants’ Association, said he knew of tbe Standards Institute’s grading rules, but; they had not been recognized either in Christchurch or on the JCest Coast. It was a physical impossibility under the present conditions for the manager of a timber company personally to supervise .more than 20 per cent, of an order going out. He would have to depend upon his employees.

IVilliam Hadfield Smith, managing director, of Brownlees Ltd., a timber firm operating at. Wellington and Lower Hutt nnd also with yards in Christchurch aud Dunedin and controlling a West Coast timber mill, said that his Christchurch firm, the Western Timber Company, had been, included in the allocation and that an employee named Loader had been charged with false pretence. It was impossible, he continued, to apply the Standards Institute’s grading regulations in the South Island, nor, for that matter, were they used 100 per cent, in the North Island.

John Cyril Southern Bush, manager of C. E, Otley Ltd., timber merchants, said he was charged with a criminal offence because of the same allocation. Personally’, he said, he had no financial interest apart from his salary in the firm. He was satisfied that the grading used by Lysaght was not that to which Christchurch and other South Island merchants were accustomed. The case will resume on Monday.